Slashdot Mirror
Many Amazon Warehouse Workers are on Food Stamps (theintercept.com)
Many of Amazon's warehouse workers have to buy their groceries with food stamps through America's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, reports the Intercept.
In Arizona, new data suggests that one in three of the company's own employees depend on SNAP to put food on the table. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, the figure appears to be around one in 10. Overall, of five states that responded to a public records request for a list of their top employers of SNAP recipients, Amazon cracked the top 20 in four.
Though the company now employs 200,000 people in the United States, many of its workers are not making enough money to put food on the table... "The average warehouse worker at Walmart makes just under $40,000 annually, while at Amazon would take home about $24,300 a year," CNN reported in 2013. "That's less than $1,000 above the official federal poverty line for a family of four."
In addition Amazon uses temp workers who may also be on food stamps, notes the article, adding that in 2017 Amazon received $1.2 billion in state and local subsidies, while effectively paying no federal income tax.
"The American people are financing Amazon's pursuit of an e-commerce monopoly every step of the way: first, with tax breaks, subsidies, and infrastructure improvements meant to lure fulfillment centers into town, and later with federal transfers to pay for warehouse workers' food."
Though the company now employs 200,000 people in the United States, many of its workers are not making enough money to put food on the table... "The average warehouse worker at Walmart makes just under $40,000 annually, while at Amazon would take home about $24,300 a year," CNN reported in 2013. "That's less than $1,000 above the official federal poverty line for a family of four."
In addition Amazon uses temp workers who may also be on food stamps, notes the article, adding that in 2017 Amazon received $1.2 billion in state and local subsidies, while effectively paying no federal income tax.
"The American people are financing Amazon's pursuit of an e-commerce monopoly every step of the way: first, with tax breaks, subsidies, and infrastructure improvements meant to lure fulfillment centers into town, and later with federal transfers to pay for warehouse workers' food."
Don't be silly. With all the hours they work, what Amazon Warehouse Worker has time to have a family of four?
Guillotine the billionaires.
There was just a post last week on the conditions of one Amazon warehouse in the UK.
Why is it the worst jobs pay the least?
I hear the executives and those in the top 5% always whine about lower paid workers about how hard the big players have to work compared to them and how much stress they have hence why they need $200,000+ salaries etc. They need the money because they work hard. But Walmart, McDonalds, and Amazon show the opposite apparently.
I see a trend too in the I.T. industry for non programmers. We are expected to take calls 24x7 and be polite at 2am when youtube looks funny and call me on the emergencies only I.T. outage line. If I say can we do this on Monday at a reasonable hour it is grounds for termination. But these big players would not accept a call at 2am for a question on a spreadsheet and would get to keep their jobs if they tell them to fuck off I am sleeping.
http://saveie6.com/
We had NCOs who were on foodstamps and going out on weekends to pick up cans along the side of the road to sell to recycling services.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
How the hell is it legal to pay someone SO little money for a job that they qualify for food stamps?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Agreed. So poor people on food stamps are able to find a job, do something productive and make a little money to improve their lives. Why would it be better to take away their job??? Do the people complaining imagine that these people were working for $50K/year before they took the temporary warehouse job?
Amazon didn't put them on welfare and food stamps. If anything, Amazon has started the process of helping them move away from that by getting work experience and skills which can translate into a better job later on.
Some people seem to think that other people owe them a living at their desired level of comfort. They don't, we got rid of slavery in the U.S. a long time ago.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
This measurement is bullshit, and I expect it'll cause more harm than good.
Apparently 14% of Americans are on SNAP assistance. On the one hand, yes, that's terribly high and it'd be great to have every American be able to support themselves... but at the same time, it's pointing blame at Amazon for daring to offer low-paying jobs. Again, 14% of Americans are on food stamps. Those 14% are going to need help with or without working for Amazon, so I, for one, am at least glad they're employed and partially offsetting their expenses.
I'd be happy to see studies about how many folks are employed full-time and still need SNAP, or the impact of SNAP participation on economic recovery, or the like, but this seems like a hit piece against one company in particular. Apparently in Pennsylvania and Ohio, the SNAP participation rate lowers to only "around one in 10", but it's phrased like a bad thing to be better than the national average.
Overall, of five states that responded to a public records request for a list of their top employers of SNAP recipients, Amazon cracked the top 20 in four.
From TFS, a perfect example of poor research... How did this result compare to the lists of top employers of non-SNAP recipients, or the count of employees for each company? Amazon is a huge company, and they employ a lot of people. I expect they'll be on the top of a lot of lists.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Subsidizing Amazon because it refuses to pay its employees enough to live is not working "reasonably well." It isn't fair to the workers, and it isn't fair to me, and it isn't fair to business that pay their workers enough to live.
I am not an accountant, I know nothing about the internal workings of Amazon other than what I can read in public media, and I probably do not know what I am talking about. But, I can do some arithmetic.
1 - The summary states that the Amazon warehouse worker makes $24,300.
2 - Amazon is famous for foregoing profits during its first 15-20 years in favor of expansion of services.
3 - There is financial information at the following links:
Amazon revenues: https://www.statista.com/stati...
Amazon income: https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/...
Amazon employees: https://www.statista.com/stati...
Amazon profits: https://www.theverge.com/2016/...
Based on these numbers, Amazon's performance in 2017 was:
Revenue = $178b
Gross profit after cost of revenue = $66b
Income after operating expenses = $4b
Net income after taxes et al = $3b
Employment = 566,000
For prior years:
2016: $2.4b net on $136b revenue, 341,000 employees
2015: $0.6b net on $107b revenue, 231,000 employees
You can see the trend - Amazon is only recently profitable as employees expand with general revenue and profit.
I have no idea how many of the employees are warehouse or fulfillment center employees. I have seen reports that would place the number between 130k and 200k.
For the sake of this analysis, assume that other low skilled employees are included, and we will go with 200,000 bottom wage employees.
Assume that Amazon had a fit of good will toward its workers and payed them a liveable non-stressful wage.
If in 2017 the $24k current wage was upped to $34k, that is an extra $10k/person/annum x 200k workers = $2 billion extra in wages.
That is 2/3's of profit, so Amazon could have afforded it (at the expense of shareholder return).
In 2016, assume a pro rata fewer number of low wage employees, 341k/566k x 200k = 120k.
Then, $10k x 120k workers = $1.2 billion = 1/2 of profit, so it was affordable.
In 2015, estimate low wage workers at 231k/566k x 200k = 82k.
Then, $10k x 82k workers = $0.82 billion = 1/3 greater than profit, so it was not fully affordable.
Going back farther, there was less profit to fund higher wages.
I am not arguing for or against Amazon, nor for or against minimum wages or workers rights or any other sociopolitical point of view. Being in a human services profession, I tend to side with the workers, and it pains me to hear of such situations. However, I also buy from Amazon, and call me a hypocrite if you will, but so do you.
Emotional or political or social points of view aside, it can be seen that Amazon's push to expand did not permit unfettered generous wages during periods of unprofitability.
Of course, the counter argument must be made that the higher paid employees, which are greater than half the workforce, could have had reduced wages and bonuses for a more equitable pay scale.
Now that Amazon is coming into the black, the righteous thing to do would be to raise wages. Even better, given how long they operated in the red, and were famously proud to do so, they could do so for another year or two and turn their profits into stock or cash bonuses for the low paid employees, to thank them for their sacrifice during the formative years.